Pacifist? Are you kidding?

Question

So, with all of the anti-war sentiment out there, the peace movement has started to rear its head again. I don't mean people calling for peace or an end to the current war in Iraq, I mean dyed in the wool pacifists. People who really believe war is evil and unjustified.

My question is this: how possibly can a reasonable person be a pacifist? I can understand protesting certain wars, as I am sypathetic to the idea that not all wars are just. However, how can anyone believe that all war is unjust? Especially given all of the problems throughout history that have been solved with war (Nazism, fascism, slavery, etc.).

So, pacifists, defend your position. Provide me with even a glimmer of a reasonable argument and you get the 10 points.

Anti-pacifists. Tell me when you think war is just. If no pacifist convinces me, I'll give the 10 to someone who provides a useful definition of just war.

Gotta be honest...I'm not betting on the pacifists...

Answer 1

A war is justified when the cost of life will keep a people free, or alive. A man in the army, assuming it isn't by draft, has volunteered to serve, and to give his life in the defense of his country. If that man's life is taken in the effort to keep a people free, to make a people free, or to stop a genocide, then I am wholly behind it. Your examples say it loud and clear.
But what I get from the pacifist movement is this: war, as they see it, is an unnecessary waste of human life. they somehow ignore what is in human nature: a desire for power. In some men (and women) it is stronger - that's natural. Since the dawn of time, there have been power struggles over many things; land, food, women and religion are among these.
My biggest gripe with pacifism is that they don't take into account certain things. No amount of talking is going to stop Islamic extremists hating Jews, or Americans. No amount of diplomacy is going to stop tribes in Africa murdering each other over diamonds.
Pacifists have a great faith in the human condition and the innate goodness in us all. They have a blind eye, however, when it comes to adversity.

Answer 2

I'm no pacifist, but I'm no war monger either. I am however a former soldier that has fought in combat and I can tell you that there are moments when war is the ONLY alternative. True, nobody wins in war, but it's a means to an end; hopefully an ending which finally yields peace between nations. I would hope that our elected leaders utilize every available means and resource to thwart an armed conflict, but sometimes it comes down to combat to settle a dispute and usually, unlike the war in Iraq, it's a REAL dispute. As you can see, I don't agree with Bush on sending our troops in to liberate a country which does not want it. They've been that way for hundreds of years, let them wallow in their own despair and save our troops for something more meaningful.

Answer 3

well... it all really comes down to a few key issues... religion... what you think is right... and what you think about people in general...

take Jesus for example... religious folks tend to think he was about as perfect as you can get... but, he's clearly a pacifist... he let people crucify him even... (turned over a table once, said he regretted it)...

and also, for non-religious folk, take Gandhi... promoted a passive movement...

I think most people would consider them reasonable, and in fact, if you've read their writings... pretty smart folks... so to say that they aren't "reasonable" is a bit silly...

they just have, both higher expectations and hopes for the human race... which we often don't live up to. But, at the same time, you can't argue with the progress the two of them made in their actions... one has the best selling book of all time and millions of worshipers and the other freed a whole nation...

me personally, I have a bit too much of a temper and I'm too impatient to be a pacifist... probably against my better judgment with those fine examples of pacifists I just gave, but what can you do?

and fascism and slavery still exist in many places... just saying.. there are even a few Nazis still around...

Answer 4

I am a pacifist however I can recognize that each and every combatant has been educated by other people and circumstance.Each combatant is innocent in his or her own views and expects those views to be supported by others.To kill force or intimidate is clearly wrong.It is also clearly wrong to abandon someone with the same choices as you.That is 3why I chose to be a government contractor instead of a combatant.I have been beaten many times for the kindness and compassion I have provided.I do support leadership strikes when illustrated on the internationall scale as prudent.

Answer 5

I'm not a pacifist, but anyone who is pro war as so many cons seem to be, I have to say they are nuttier than the pacifists by a mile. Peace is the goal, and avoidance of war should be the priority unless absolutely forced. That was not the case in Iraq - not even close.

Answer 6

Blogbaba's decided to defend pacifists with his answer.

War is evil, and justified or not, your statement that it solved problems throughout history (Nazism, fascism, slavery, ect) is false. All three of those evils still exist today, in abundance. It's just the Nazi fascists of today use money to accomplish their goals and enslave people instead of bullets.

In truth no problem of any significance to humanity has been solved by war. It is only through pacifism and love that enemies can ever be defeated. Sure you can kill people, but their family members will continue the hatred, so you aren't defeating your enemies with violence and death, you are creating more enemies and acutally making your situation worse.

In order to truly defeat your enemies, you must make them stop hating you, and eventually make them love you. Then and only through love are your enemies truly defeated.

I hope I presented the pacifist positon correctly, personally, I, like most, perferred the way Billy Jack handled the situation to the position his pacifist girlfriend took in the movie. The blogbaba was never a fan of getting his cheek slapped, let alone turning the other one, pacifism never worked for me.

On the other end of the spectrum, a just war is defined as defence in result of an unprovoked attack. Justice is a moral concept defined by individual societies and varies from place to place and time frame to time fram. But unprovoked agression is usally frowned upon. Physical abiltiy however is revered.

Some society's look upon martial arts or military prowess as indicative of honor or justice, hence the glorification of war evidenced in "the glory of Rome". Rome's glory was bought at the point of a sword, but it still remains one of mankinds greatest civilizations. A belief in justice through combat grew from this, to create the cliche "might makes right".

The concept of war as a determinate of mankinds social evolution have pushed us to the bring of nuclear annilation, a nowin situation for anyone. Is a nuclear war for the sake of honor preferable to the risk of humilation envolved in loving ones enemy? It really is a life or death choice, and as much as it grates on the machismo of the blogbaba, a peaceful life is better than an honorable death.

Bet or not its the pacifists or death for humanity, killing each other serves no purpose save to delay the inevitable. Christian theology was right in saying that if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. the blogbaba chooses life. Hope I got the 10 pts, it wasn't easy laying down my sword and arguing a point I disagree with.

Answer 7

Good question. I've come to the conclusion that pacifist liberals believe nothing -- NOTHING -- is worth fighting, dying, or sacrifice.

Here's their assertion: We're killing people in Iraq. We have to get out of Iraq immediately so the killing will stop. What stuns me is that the loony left actually believes that there will not be mass slaughter in the millions if we were to cut and run.

The pacifists in this country have caused more harm and death to people around the world that any other group. What happened when we cut and ran from Vietnam? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 3 MILLION PEOPLE. That's what pacifists brought to Cambodia. Death, murder, rape, torture. But could any anti-war Vietnam activist tell you about the Killing Fields in Cambodia? No. Why? Because they're ignorant and terrible, terrible people.

They said Carter's pacifism would bring peace.....WRONG.

They said Reagan's military build-up would bring war.....WRONG.

If pacifists ran this country we would not be living in a free society. No question about it.

Answer 8

A Theocracy or religious based governments understand nothing but intimidation and murder and some how they even find a way to make that sound noble and holy. They consider pacifism a weakness and would only want to attack you more.
The only way to have true peace is to wipe out all people who want to hurt you. Quite a paradox isn't it?

Answer 9

When you have asked nicely and the country is so ****...full of evil it can't hear you.

Unfortunately Allah speaks louder than guns and their biggest weapon is hiding. Was not Trickery war even in biblical times as the wooden gift horse was led through the gates. We welcome into our airplanes, our country............their hate, our fate an annihilation.

Shall we lay down our heads for....... Did you say Peace or rest in peace?????

War is acceptable when your fighting over a tea tax and you don't want to belong to another country anymore. Freedom rings, it is to die for. Our greatest weapon, our own land.

Answer 10

What about people in the middle? Someone like me who thinks that war is a horrible thing, but necessary sometimes. I wish it wasn't needed... but sometimes it is and I'm not going to argue with that. As for people who want to go to war with anyone who dislikes America even a little, they need to grow up.